Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John 6:53 - Unless you eat My flesh (open)
Proclaiming The Gospel Ministries ^ | unknown | Mike Gendron

Posted on 05/28/2008 1:33:50 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You

Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. Thus Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life. In fact, this literal interpretation forms the foundation for Rome's doctrine of transubstantiation -- the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words "Hoc corpus meus est." Catholics believe as they consume the lifeless wafer they are actually eating and drinking the living body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a vital and important step in their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become a Catholic.

If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and if indeed consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. Therefore the question of utmost importance is -- Was the message Jesus conveyed to the Jewish multitude to be understood as literal or figurative? Rome has never presented a good argument for defending its literal interpretation. Yet there are at least seven convincing reasons why this passage must be taken figuratively.

Counterfeit Miracle

There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

Drinking Blood Forbidden

The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)

Biblical Disharmony

When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.

Produces Dilemma

It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.

Figurative In Old Testament

The Jews were familiar with "eating and drinking" being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one's innermost being. It was God's way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)

Jesus Confirmed

Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself -- "the bread of life" (6:48), "the light of the world" (8:12), "the door" (10:9), "the good shepherd" (10:11), "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), "the way, the truth and the life" (14:6), and "the true vine" (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19).

Words Were Spiritual

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing "the words I have spoken to you are spirit" (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John's Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. "God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: communion; eucharist; heresy; transubstantiation; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last
To: editor-surveyor

The point of 6:63 is that the apostles must believe His teachings about His flesh and blood in order for His flesh and blood to be effective.

Mere mechanical ritualism is not salvific, and the Church has never taught otherwise.


81 posted on 05/28/2008 7:08:30 PM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

“Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You”

Uhhh - by that argument, one possible interpretation of the above could be “Eat Long Pig or Die”.

Might a bit of interpretation just possibly be acceptable?


82 posted on 05/28/2008 7:12:41 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

Well, it all depends...

Was the Son of Man merely “Long Pig?”

Or was there something remarkable about His flesh?


83 posted on 05/28/2008 7:24:13 PM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: narses

I understand why one might have the view you and the RCC defend. Scripture says that spiritually dead people cannot comprehend scriptural truth - this is why those people did not understand the Lord in myriad places in the Bible.


84 posted on 05/28/2008 7:26:06 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

In case your question is serious, please read the conclusion of the article; if not, read post #84:

Jesus ended this teaching by revealing “the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach.


85 posted on 05/28/2008 7:29:02 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ravens70
"Perhaps the same could be said for post reformation pharisees of the Protestant church..."

Do you understand what the nature of the pharisaical authority was?

What similar false authority could you point to in the truly protestant denominations? (we must exclude the Episcopals here)

86 posted on 05/28/2008 7:36:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Wow, what a scholarly response. “Scripture says that spiritually dead people cannot comprehend scriptural truth - this is why those people did not understand the Lord in myriad places in the Bible.” Perhaps that applies to you?


87 posted on 05/28/2008 7:49:56 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: narses

Scholarly? Maybe. Scriptural? Certainly:

1 Cor 2:
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I can’t help it if the RCC interprets Scripture is such a wooden fashion, without understanding.


88 posted on 05/28/2008 7:54:26 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Actually, I thought it was a clever turn of your phrase..

“What similar false authority could you point to in the truly protestant denominations? (we must exclude the Episcopals here”

Uhmm,..let’s see...how about the “every man his own authority”
school of Protestant thought..will that work for you???


89 posted on 05/28/2008 8:03:12 PM PDT by Ravens70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

“In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.”

Is it seriously your contention that the glorified Body of Christ is bound by space and time?

What else, praytell, do you declare it impossible for Christ to do? I’m sure Christ would appreciate knowing.


90 posted on 05/28/2008 8:06:24 PM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

YOPIOS. Reread your post — look for your own beam. If you can.


91 posted on 05/28/2008 8:17:32 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
He did in certain and distinct terms in verse 63

In other words, "eat my flesh and drink my blood, but you'll find that it's a waste of your time".

I don't think so. "These words", i.e., the words that I have just spoken to you, are spirit and life. 6:63 intensifies the previous chapter, it doesn't negate it.

92 posted on 05/28/2008 8:28:40 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It's common in transliteration to use "h" to transliterate the letter eta, since it is a different letter from epsilon which is usually transliterated by "e." Since the "h" sound in Greek is not a letter but a breathing, it is represented by " ' " so there is no confusion.

Yes, I realize the breathing accent mark. However, I have never been taught while taking Greek to represent Eta "e" as an English "h". Eta is a long e, as in scene. Thanks for letting me know.

93 posted on 05/28/2008 8:30:31 PM PDT by Truth Defender (History teaches, if we but listen to it; but no one really listens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place.

Hey, Manfred ... this sentence is horsefeathers.

The Incarnation itself is the Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred (God became man) where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place (the Baby in the manger still looked like a baby in the manger).

In fact, one Catholic apologist has pointed out that every Protestant objection to the Eucharist can be turned around and used as an objection to the Incarnation. Perhaps that's why so many Protestant denominations have deteriorated to the point that they deny even the deity of Christ, hmm?

94 posted on 05/28/2008 8:31:55 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Campion

“horsefeathers” .. is that meant to be pejorative?

“The Incarnation itself is the Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred (God became man) where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place (the Baby in the manger still looked like a baby in the manger).”

“In fact, one Catholic apologist has pointed out that every Protestant objection to the Eucharist can be turned around and used as an objection to the Incarnation.”

This is so funny as to be hard to believe. You think there was NOTHING supernatural apparent in the birth of the Lord Jesus? What did the shepherds see and hear in the field? What caused Herod to seek the magi? What drew the magi to Jerusalem? What caused pre-born John to jump in the womb?

RCs must conclude that the Eucharist is tied to the incarnation, because if the Truth were known, there would be a another reformation.


95 posted on 05/29/2008 5:42:06 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In fact, one Catholic apologist has pointed out that every Protestant objection to the Eucharist can be turned around and used as an objection to the Incarnation.

And yet that same Catholic apologist has to admit that the doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist is itself a denial of the Resurrection.

96 posted on 05/29/2008 5:44:11 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Campion
In other words, "eat my flesh and drink my blood, but you'll find that it's a waste of your time."

LOL

97 posted on 05/29/2008 5:45:52 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
And yet that same Catholic apologist has to admit that the doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist is itself a denial of the Resurrection.

Complete non-sequitur.

98 posted on 05/29/2008 5:46:37 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit.

Trying to put rhetorical handcuffs on God is a strange and silly waste of time.

It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

He has the power to do whatever He wants. He gave His instructions and promise at the Last Supper and He is keeping it.

99 posted on 05/29/2008 5:50:20 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Campion
Complete non-sequitur.

I'm sorry, let me fix it:

And yet that same Catholic apologist, if he thinks about it, has to admit that the doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist is itself a denial of the Resurrection.

100 posted on 05/29/2008 5:52:42 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson